Not saying that biofuels are bad, but by no means are they a good answer to the Global Warming Crisis(tm). Scientific American highlights a Princeton University study printed in Science Magazine that summarizes…
“Prior analyses made an accounting error,” says one study’s lead author, Tim Searchinger, an agricultural expert at Princeton University. “There is a huge imbalance between the carbon lost by plowing up a hectare [2.47 acres] of forest or grassland from the benefit you get from biofuels.”
Turning food into fuel also has the unintended consequence of driving up food prices, reducing the access of the neediest populations to grains and meat. “It’s equivalent to saying we will try to reduce greenhouse gases by reducing food consumption,” Searchinger says. “Unfortunately, a lot of that comes from the world’s poorest people.”
“We are converting their food into our fuel,” Tilman notes. ” The typical driver of an SUV spends as much on fuel in a month as the poorer third of the world spend on food.”
So, bad for the environment AND the poor AND the economy? Not saying it couldn’t work in some areas of our economy, but to those that think that this is the Golden Ticket of energy independence, think again. That is, unless, you no longer care about Saving The Rain Forest(tm).
I’m a conservationist, myself, but I still get a kick out of watching the super-enviromaniacs eat one another over these issues. In the meantime, me and the fam will continue to keep our driving to a minimum and maximize our use of our local mass transit. KTHXBAI.
…oh…. So what would I propose then, since I’m attempting to being a smarty-pants? I’m still for invading Saudi Arabia and claiming control of the oil fields*. In the meantime, I’m all for a nuclear-based economy. Please feel free to give the litany of reason of why that/I is/am bad/evil.
*yes, that was said, specifically to get your dander up